To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons...
UN Document A/CONF.192/15 Part II Section 2
http://disarmament.un.org/cab/poa.html

Though they piously claim that their purpose is to stop illegal trade in small arms around the world, the United Nations' drive for global gun control is all about one thing: declaring between 60 and 65 million law-abiding Americans (according to the 2003 NRA factsheet) instant criminals. The UN wants to oversee all sales of "small arms" -- including handguns, rifles and shotguns. The resolution demands that "henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process." They want to track all guns from manufacturer to owner to owner, and "prevent the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of any unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons" (which must include all existing guns, since these marks have not yet been created). In other words, if you own a gun manufactured before the new marking is determined, you're in violation... you and tens of millions of other Americans exercising the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were extremely clear on their purposes regarding gun ownership. (Again referring to the NRA factsheet) Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."  Some people might argue that a militia is no longer necessary to the security of the country. Some of those people might argue that if a militia is no longer necessary, the people have no right to keep and bear arms. Reading the Constitution, I find no place in it where that or any right is specifically granted; therefore the rights the Constitution was designed to protect were pre-supposed to exist independently of and prior to its existence. There is certainly no precedent in the Constitution for removing the rights of the people, however... nor should there be.

If the United Nations succeeds in removing your right to own a gun, they will have succeeded in circumventing the Constitution of the United States, rendering it inferior to the will of the United Nations. Many "multiculturalist" (meaning "anti-THIS-culture") Liberals would think of that as a good thing, since (in their opinion), the United States is neither capable nor worthy of self-determination. To say the least, I disagree with that opinion.  The Amendments in the Bill of Rights were designed to protect one thing: our freedom. An armed citizenry need never fear falling under the sort of totalitarian dictatorships that comprise many of the United Nations members, for instance.